Since when is the New York Times a tech organization? I don't think I care what anyone in the NYT has to say about Windows any more than I would from my local paper. Or the Food Network.
Not that I don't disagree. The kernel does need to be rebuilt, and rebuilt as a kernel
. The Windows model, whether real or marketing, of "everything is part of the OS" is absurd. No wonder half the system breaks when they change something seemingly unrelated. This is one area where Macs have it right: just run on a frickin Unix kernel. Why reinvent that wheel? Do all you value-added stuff in the shell and applications.
Originally Posted by sub_lime
Windows 4.0 = 95, 98, ME
Windows 5.0 = 2000
Windows 5.1 = XP
Windows 6.0 = Vista
I wonder where they got Windows 7 from...
Nope...ME was the end of the Win 9x code base. As was pointed out, Windows 2000 and up were based on the NT code base. So a more accurate numbering scheme would be:
4 = NT 4.0
5 = Windows 2000
5.1 = XP
6 = Vista
7 = Windows 7
Originally Posted by carl25
i don't count them by numbers , because if they wanted to call them by numbers, then they would
They do call them by the numbers internally, and in the software itself. Office 2007 is Office 12, for example. The year naming convention was something they borrowed from how cars were marketed, to try and sell us on the idea of buying new software every year or two. I.e., "Windows 4.0" doesn't sound that outdated; but Windows 95 sure as heck does!!!